-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The UK votes to leave the European Union |OUT2| Mayday, Mayday, I've lost an ARM
- Thread starter Hasney
- Start date
- Status
Linkstrikesback
Member
Bloody hell. Looking at that page and the comments section was a mistake.
No wonder the UK is in so much trouble.
inoperativ
Member
This was covered in plenty of detail by the higher education sector during the referendum campaign. The papers can go fuck themselves.
accel
Member
These endless reactions regarding freedom of movement being oh-so-completely non-negotiable and sacrosanct, and everybody in the EU seeing immigration as a super-positive thing (except maybe some nuts with no power who Guardian writers use to give their articles more weight)...
Are you guys aware that, Hungary, for example, is going to have a referendum exactly on migration issues this year? These guys, too, want some control over who to take in their country and how many, they aren't fine with the EU controlling it for them. Yes, that's about refugees now, but that's just because it's Hungary, EU people don't migrate to Hungary, they migrate to something like the UK - the UK and Hungary want more or less the same thing, control over that part of life given to the country, not the Union. More importantly, today's refugees are tomorrow's citizens, so unless the issue with refugees coming to the EU is solved in some way - and it is kind of hard to see how at the moment - you see where this will go.
Some countries might even go as far as want some means to control migration instated right in the EU, however ridiculous it might sound to some. And after a couple years, if it all continues same as now, "some countries" might be an understatement.
Control over migration is an issue that quite a lot of member countries will understand.
Are you guys aware that, Hungary, for example, is going to have a referendum exactly on migration issues this year? These guys, too, want some control over who to take in their country and how many, they aren't fine with the EU controlling it for them. Yes, that's about refugees now, but that's just because it's Hungary, EU people don't migrate to Hungary, they migrate to something like the UK - the UK and Hungary want more or less the same thing, control over that part of life given to the country, not the Union. More importantly, today's refugees are tomorrow's citizens, so unless the issue with refugees coming to the EU is solved in some way - and it is kind of hard to see how at the moment - you see where this will go.
Some countries might even go as far as want some means to control migration instated right in the EU, however ridiculous it might sound to some. And after a couple years, if it all continues same as now, "some countries" might be an understatement.
Control over migration is an issue that quite a lot of member countries will understand.
SporeCrawler
Member
Interesting UK people are now suggesting war on EU if the EU doesnt comply with their demands (at said comments section). Should be interesting if this kind of sentiment becomes mainstream.
Linkstrikesback
Member
The problem is we accept that migration is going to happen. You're not special because of where you popped out between someones legs. And frankly, I take a lot of offense to people who think it does.
I wonder how quickly it'd change those peoples minds if we sent those people out to fight then. We would have plenty of room for EU immigrants then, at least.
I wonder how quickly it'd change those peoples minds if we sent those people out to fight then. We would have plenty of room for EU immigrants then, at least.
Yes. But repeat after me. If they give the UK a super special deal all those countries will want the same deal. At that point the EU is over. If you can leave the club, get the benefits without the downsides and at a reduced cost why be in the club?
That's the inescapable logic of the situation. Any special treatment the UK gets (and lord knows they've had enough of it over the years and still left) will need to be replicated for the rest of the EU else the cost/benefit analysis for EU members will change.
To be fair, their poll options make it clear that it would be a natural consequence of Brexit:
SporeCrawler
Member
The truth is that Current effects are just the markets thinking short term and being in panic.
The long term effects will be
- UK loosing the financial sector (at least as far as EU financial services are concerned)
- companies will be reluctant to invest in the next few years unless they see an opportunity to go elephant hunting (like with softbank)
- exporting services might get jeopardized (services make up 80% of UK GDP) due to UK and EU operating under WTO rules.
accel
Member
If all or most member countries want control over migration and don't get it because otherwise "the EU is over" whatever that means, how is this good? It is not.
This logic you explain is exactly why I think it is good that the UK is leaving.
accel
Member
Wait a couple of years.
What if countries want control of their services market liberalisation? Should an extra special deal be concocted for them? How about if they really want to remove their chemical licensing from EU regulation? What if they want to remove a sector from the common market?
You start making exception after exception after exception then the whole thing falls apart. The majority of EU countries are still for freedom of movement btw.
The biggest laugh is the UK doesn't actually have an EU immigration issue
it has shitty government. Incoming EU immigration is a net contributor to UK finances.
This is irrelevant. Are Hungary asking for an end to free movement within the EU, or an end to refugees from outside of the EU, or both?
[edit] http://hungarytoday.hu/news/pm-orba...ment-eu-citizens-rejects-migrant-quotas-99409
Oh, so Hungary wants free movement of people within the EU. Fancy that.
So UK is gonna work without access to single market for a couple of years until your theory becomes true?
inoperativ
Member
The refugee crisis is exactly that, a crisis. There might be some special rules adopted in the short term to allow countries more freedom to deal with it. This is not the same as the EU abandoning the principle of free movement of people in the long term. Populist parties around the EU have been spouting anti-immigration rhetoric for 20 years now and it's only the perfect storm of a prolonged economic slump and the largest refugee crisis since the second world war that have given them enough support to be politically relevant. There are already examples of such parties having to swallow their BS when put into actual government (e.g. Perussuomalaiset).
Thing is, beyond an obvious and stupid misstep (the euro), the EU has been extremely successful at integrating the economies and cultures of a bunch of very diverse countries into a larger whole. Freedom of movement of people might largely be talked about in terms of eastern European workers undercutting wages, but in practice it's used by millions of Europeans from everywhere in the EU for studying and working in other countries, which has allowed personal ties between people from different countries to be formed at a rate that would have been unthinkable a generation ago. Many when discussing restrictions on freedom of movement of people don't even realise they take these things for granted, which is why I'm certain it's far too late for any meaningful restrictions to be put into place that would not just become politically unsustainable once people started realising what they actually entailed.
accel
Member
It asks for end to refugees from outside of the EU because that's the problem they are having today. They want free movement of people within the EU for the same reason, because it is good for them today. Over time refugees convert into citizens, you don't have to be an Einstein to see how the desire to not take refugees converts into the desire to limit the movement within the EU - first for countries with highest such migration, and then, if these countries leave, down onto others. And the UK is already leaving.
SporeCrawler
Member
Refugees dont fall under the freedom of movement. They may profit from schengen because they can cross borders easily but they dont have the same rights as, say a french guy that chooses to work in spain, germany or belgium.
I suppose that since everything else you say is based on a wish and a prayer I shouldn't have expected anything but more of the same.
SporeCrawler
Member
If they go through the naturalization process sure. That however takes couple of years of residence, a steady job etc. (Or marrying a european citizen)..malso if anything other countries are seeing what mess the brexit is becomming. I highly doubt any other country will try it.
Royal_Phalanx
Member
What if countries want control of their services market liberalisation? Should an extra special deal be concocted for them? How about if they really want to remove their chemical licensing from EU regulation? What if they want to remove a sector from the common market?
You start making exception after exception after exception then the whole thing falls apart. The majority of EU countries are still for freedom of movement btw.
The biggest laugh is the UK doesn't actually have an EU immigration issue
it has shitty government. Incoming EU immigration is a net contributor to UK finances.
The government is heavily into austerity. Immigration is a convenient excuse and scapegoat for people who have difficult lives, made harder by the lack of proper funding of services. Migration withing the EU is not a problem, in my opinion. It's the refugee crisis that's turning heads towards immigration at this point.
And if refugees are part of society to the extent that they gain citizenship, then good on them I guess.
BibiMaghoo
Member
But this was never the case even as a member, as you note. Why does leaving preclude special deals when they have always been on our table from the start? The logic doesn't work with such overwhelming precedent. Other countries didn't demand the same concessions Britain had in numbers.
accel
Member
I agree it's a crisis. If there are some special rules to be adopted in the short term, great. I am just skeptical that the EU can adopt adequate measures fast enough. But, sure, if they can, great - if they did it this year, maybe Hungary wouldn't have had their referendum, and if the EU were fast and flexible on other matters maybe we wouldn't have had Brexit either.
SporeCrawler
Member
UK has crossed the line at this point. Leaving is leaving. You just dont get the privileges if you are out of the club, even if you had negotiated a special membership. The other member states are not existing for the sake of UKs wellbeing
So what rules can national states establish on their own? Killing people at the borders? Letting italy and greece deal with it?
Its clear that the measures will take a long time and the EU is moving too slow (28 states have to agree after all, soon 27, thank god) but national states on their own just cant deal with the issue on their own.
BibiMaghoo
Member
I understand that, but that is an issue of morality. There is precedent, lots of it for "have your cake and eat it" politically speaking for the UK within the EU, and it never broke the system down. It never spurred other members to demand the same concessions, and it worked in countries interests, rather than the EU states. I think people saying "well you get nothing now you left or else it breaks the system" don't seem to realise that the system never worked that way to begin with, and nothing points to that change now, other than that moral posturing.
Yes but that's because 'we'll leave the EU' was the nuclear option that we could invoke to get those concessions. Now that the nuclear option has been invoked, we have greatly diminished bargaining power.
Almost all of the UK's concessions were unique to it (rebate, financial services yadda yadda). The fundamental freedoms weren't affected. They now are. And the previous concessions were basically at the gunpoint of veto or leaving, both those options are off the table. This is a let us back in and drop your trousers situation in terms of UK demands, if the EU wants to stay together they really can't submit to it.
You fail to make the difference between a UK inside and outside the EU. When the UK was inside everyone tried to keep them inside.
When the UK is outside it will be treated as a outside country just like Canada for example.
You have EU countries out for blood on certain industries (like financial services or startups). The UK wanted to be outsider and it will be treated as one just like Canada and the US
As Merkel said there has to be a difference between being inside the EU family and outside the EU family
accel
Member
A quota set by each country to whatever they think they can and should accommodate. Some might set it to zero. If there are more people who want to enter than the quota, not all of them are allowed to enter. It's 2+2, I don't know why you even asked.
What you are suggesting the EU adds on top of that? Directions "don't lie to me, you can take 5 thousand more"??? That's so helpful. "Fair" numbers computed using the same algorithm even though different countries disagree on what's acceptable? Yeah, that will work. You talk like the EU can do something super-smart here. In reality, all it can do is redistribute friction - inefficiently and slowly.
inoperativ
Member
The EU will never be fast and flexible, that's pretty much by design. If you want a union that does the things the EU does without more political integration you pretty much have to end up with something like the current structures. So in the end it's a question of whether or not you think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, just like everything else in life. Imagining that you could design a perfect union with only positives is wishful thinking.
UK got concessions because they brought something to counterbalance them: bringing the (at the time) fourth or fifth economy of the world in the single market and the EU, and contributing to the EU economy and budget. Other EU members don't have that kind of weight, hence why they knew they wouldn't get the same concessions.
Pray tell, now that they expressed their wish for leaving, what will they bargain with, to get even bigger concessions?
SporeCrawler
Member
I dont agree that its only about morals. Its about credibility internally and externally. UK has the same
Status as US, Japan etc. What if they want single market access without having to contribute and without freedom of movement? What if UK exits a hypothetical deal and now wants an even better deal? At some point you have to consider your best alternative to a negotiated agreement and if that is better than what UK gives you, you have to go with it.
accel
Member
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=211188186&postcount=11172 - it's right in the fist post on that
So like I said, absolutely nothing to do with free movement of labour in the EU.
SporeCrawler
Member
Yup and most of the countries are saying zero which leaves the burden to border states like greece and italy. Voluntary quotas dont work.
The EU gives the 28 states (soon 27) a forum to discuss these issues. The european council after all is the european governments. Sure it takes time to come to an unilateral decision
accel
Member
I made two connections. If you don't see them, well, you don't see them.
SporeCrawler
Member
I think nobody sees it so far. Except you.
I mean your argument hinges on the idea that in two years, because of reasons, Hungary's government will have exactly the opposite view to what they have now. You're going to have to do better than gesture at 'connections' to convince me, or anyone, of that.
UK getting exceptions within EU didn't threaten the existence of EU. Sure, not all the countries were happy about them, but at least all the main principles of EU were respected.
There's no real incentive to offer too many concessions to UK now because there is nothing that UK can offer in exchange. The threat of leaving EU is now useless in negotiations. It was already activated.
Even more, every exception that UK gets outside EU is an incentive for other countries to leave EU. This was not the case while UK was inside EU.
UK was practically the boy who cried wolf in negotiations.
There's no real incentive to offer too many concessions to UK now because there is nothing that UK can offer in exchange. The threat of leaving EU is now useless in negotiations. It was already activated.
Even more, every exception that UK gets outside EU is an incentive for other countries to leave EU. This was not the case while UK was inside EU.
UK was practically the boy who cried wolf in negotiations.
accel
Member
The important thing is who they think should have ultimate control over who enters the country and in what numbers - if the referendum shows that they think such control should belong to the country rather than the EU, they already have the same view that the UK has, and are supporting free movement only until it benefits them.
There's no Hungarian referendum. I suggest getting to know more about Orban before speculating any more about Hungarian politics.
accel
Member
We're going in circles at this point. You assert it means that Hungary agrees with the UK. I point out that Hungary supports freedom of movement within the EU. You make vague gesture, insist that this will change 'in two years time'. I say you have no evidence. You say it doesn't matter because it shows that Hungary agrees with the UK...
I'm out.
Oh, you were talking about the refugee quota referendum. The result of that referendum has nothing to do with freedom of movement.
accel
Member
I am saying my point (there are EU countries other than the UK who want control over migration, it's a normal thing to want to control, example: Hungary having a referendum because they want control). You say a side thing that does not counter my point (Hungary support freedom of movement and the UK don't). I detail my point trying to show that what you said is a side thing and the point is about something else (Hungary is only fine with having no control over migration in the area where the UK want to have it, because it benefits Hungary currently, they don't support having no control, they support benefits from an arrangement that happens to currently give them no harm from not having such control). You repeat again your thing about freedom of movement, etc.
Yes, it's a circle. Let's not continue.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked